> I'm just glad people are working on trying to discover the chains of logic that let us not be so screwed, hard as that problem may be. I don't see any paradox

> I'm just glad people are working on trying to discover the chains of logic that let us not be so screwed, hard as that problem may be. I don't see any paradox there that makes the problem impossible, I understand you don't perceive the paradox. Nonetheless, my point is rather that when a paradox presents an impossible problem, then something about our premise is not understood. Or we need to find an entirely different concept to solve our problems. For example, an entirely different concept of intelligence not modelled strictly on how we perceive our brains. In summary, I think we are trying to solve the wrong problem. I might write something more depth at some point on that to explain my views. > Incidentally there are many secure systems and schemes that have not fallen. But you'd probably write them off as too narrow for some reason. This is precisely my point. We can build what is logically infallible to only be subverted by different means. If you can't hack the system, trick a human to give you access. This is how every such system has been defeated.